[9rx]

> if you are taking some pretty wild speculation as a reasoned explanation.

How the heck did you manage to conflate line of reasoning with claims being made?

> There isn't much hope for you.

And fall for the ad hominem fallacy.

> crazy arguments that somehow everything Trump does is the fault of the Democrats

While inventing some weird diatribe about crazy arguments claiming Democrats being at fault for what Trump does, bearing no resemblance to anything else in the discussion.

> They are crazy on the face of it.

As well as introducing some kind of nebulous legion of unidentified "crazy" straw men.

> that doesn't make sense

Couldn't have said it better myself.

> Maybe if people had to clarify their positions

Sad part is that asking for clarification on the position of that earlier comment would have been quite reasonable. There is potentially a lot we can learn from in the missing details. If only you had taken the two extra seconds to understand the comment before replying.

[FrustratedMonky]

Ok. If you go back to original. I was bit sarcastic. So a sarcastic question, is probably not taken as a real question.

Like when hearing something out of left field, I think the reply can also be extreme, like saying 'Wuuut????, are you real?".

I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump. Thus anything that happens now is really a knock on effect of Democrats not beating him, so we blame Democrats instead of the people that actually voted for Trump or Trump himself.

So hearing yet another argument about how Democrats are so politically astute that they could swing the Republican primary yet completely fumble later, just seems like more conspiracy theories.

[9rx]

> I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump.

If you mean your own comments, yes, I saw that too. Your invented blame made about as much sense as blaming a butterfly who flapped his wings in Africa, but I understand that you were ultimately joking around. Of course, the same holds true for all other comments you supposedly keep seeing. You are not the only one on this earth who dabbles in sarcasm or other forms of comedy, I can assure you.

> Like when hearing something out of left field

The Democrats preferring to race against Trump instead of whomever the alternative would have been may not be actually true, but out in left field? Is this sarcasm again? They beat Trump before. Them seeing him as the weakest opponent at the time wouldn't come as a shock to me. Why you?

> So hearing yet another argument about how Democrats are so politically astute that they could swing the Republican primary

There was nothing to suggest political astuteness. The claim was that they were worried about someone other than Trump winning the Republican ballot and, because of that, they took action to grease the wheels of his victory. Even the most inept group of people would still see the motive and would almost certainly still take action. That it ostensibly worked is just as easily explained by dumb luck.

[FrustratedMonky]

It wasn't you, but I was responding to this

>"It's the White House that wanted Trump to be candidate. They played Republican primary voters like a fiddle by launching a barrage of transparently political prosecutions just as Republican primaries were starting."

This really did sound like it " suggest political astuteness"

And, so all the way back, I responded sarcastically. If Democrats could 'Play Republicans like a fiddle", because they wanted Trump to win the primary. Then what happened? Where did all that 'astuteness' go.

[9rx]

I don't know what you think "play like a fiddle" means, but in common usage it generally implies that the one being played is gullible.

1. What suggests that astuteness is required to "trick" the gullible? Especially when we are only talking about a single instance of ostensible "success", not even demonstration of repeatability. Dumb luck remains just as likely of an explanation.

2. Under the assumption of easy manipulation as the phrase has been taken to mean, why do you find it unlikely that Trump couldn't have also "tricked" them?

In fact, if we buy into the original comment's premise, the Democrats not recognizing that Trump could just as easily "play them like a fiddle" suggests the exact opposite of being astute from my vantage point. But the view from my vantage point cannot be logically projected onto the original comment. It remains that the original comment gave no such indication either way. Where do you hear this "sound" that you speak of?

[FrustratedMonky]

I can't argue with any of that, since technically everyone could have been playing everyone else. Maybe Republicans are easily fooled, or maybe Trump is playing 5-d chess and playing both sides.

I just think 'playing like a fiddle' typically means a lopsided power dynamic where one person has much more knowledge, or skill. So I'd assume it was implying Democrats were in a superior position. Not, that Democrats just got lucky once. This going back and forth pointing fingers about who was playing , seems like too many layers deep.

it feels like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMz7JBRbmNo

[9rx]

> So I'd assume it was implying Democrats were in a superior position.

And that is an equally fair assumption. But it is not written into the original comment. You cannot logically project your own take onto what someone else wrote.